On the new video here on CNN, could someone explain to me what this object is when the clip gets to 1min 9secs? As you look at the video, theres a
traffic cone on the left with a box slightly to its right in the foreground. Look just between these two nearer the Pentagon and theres what looks
like a white/silver post of some kind. At 1min 9secs on the clip, this post suddenly shoots up in the air, or should i say extends. The only way i can
desribe it is as if there was a chopped off lamp post, then it suddenly shoots up or extends to it's original height again. Either that or it looks
like a fire water hydrant going off as if a car has crashed into it, only nothing has touched it. Probably nothing, i just could'nt make out what it
was.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
As this video "release" reinforces.....there simply is no evidence that there is any legitimacy to his claim.

More "legitimacy" then you and some others are willing to see or admit, I would imagine, eh?

Why would you trust him over the witnesses that reported a small craft?

Umm, because there were a horde of witnessed people that claimed they say what SO's friend saw, you think?

I would think the "friend" of a conspiracy forum admin wouldn't be the most reliable of witnesses.

Neither would those you have yet to put forth to counter, correct?

And again.....besides mistaking it for a drone; he might have seen the decoy plane that was a commercial airliner that landed at reagan airport within
the same minute anyway.

I will ask you again, since you are having difficulties in understanding the implied nature of what I asked you previously: Where you there to
witness the event as was SO's friend? Therefore, anything you are saying is best reserved as re-hashed rhetoric that has already been asserted on and
within various conspiracy-related sites on 9/11, correct? I would hazard a guess here and state that it was not SO's friend that "mistook" a drone
versus a commercial airliners, it was you, among others.

The wings had nothing behind them, it's the main body that had the punching power, 155 ft 3 in (47.32 m) of 12 ft 4 in (3.7 m) tube punching in at
over 400mph.

But then engines hang down BELOW the fuselage and yet there were no markings on the ground nor was there any signs of impact from the vertical
stablizer that would have reached 60 feet high if the engines didn't touch the ground.

Originally posted by Seekerof
I will ask you again, since you are having difficulties in understanding the implied nature of what I asked you previously: Where you there to witness
the event as was SO's friend? Therefore, anything you are saying is best reserved as re-hashed rhetoric that has already been asserted on and within
various conspiracy-related sites on 9/11, correct? I would hazard a guess here and state that it was not SO's friend that "mistook" a drone versus
a commercial airliners, it was you, among others.

seekerof

[edit on 16-5-2006 by Seekerof]

Hello there. Could I just enquire of you whether you were "there to witness the event as was SO's friend?" Thanks in advance.

is also interesting..the time intervall is not regular!!!!
So they did take out some frames of the video!

the third inconsistency i see today with this pictures and videos.

There was no frame inconsistency or frames removed.
As linked previously, the 2002 CNN video of the incident shows the samething and with no time interval separation or inconsistencies. CNN Video: 2002

Why should you believe one over the other when we know for a fact that there was a decoy plane flown over simultaneously and there were plans to stage
terror with drones painted like commercial airliners way back in 1964?!

Google: northwoods document

Not to mention the fact that neither the video nor the physical evidence corroborates the fact that there was a commercial airliner.

Some witnesses may have lied or been planted, some may have been legitimately fooled by the decoy or drone, and some saw it for what it was......a
smaller craft.

I don't see how the angle of the "plane" entering the frame, and the impact site on the building caused by the plane, is possible. I mean, how
hard is it to fly a plane of that size that close to the ground, parallel to the ground, and hit the side of the bulilding without hitting the ground
first or overshooting the building. It seems more probable to me that the plane would come in more at an angle and strike the building from the upper
side, or the plane would hit the ground before hitting the building, both of which would leaved debris. Flying a plane just feet above the ground,
parallel to the ground, seems a little fishy to me.

I saw the video where the military plane hit the concrete wall and disintegrated, but it hit the wall head on, not from an angle The parts of the
plane that didn't disintegrate were the parts of the wings that overshot the sides of the concrete wall. From the video, I can now see why if the
plane hit the pentagon head on that it may not leave debris, as all would disintegrate, but I just cannot see a plane of this size hitting the
pentagon head on like that.

Originally posted by Jack Tripper
There are confliciting eyewitness accounts.

Question: what is the percent of those alleged conflicting eyewitness accounts?
Do the vast majority support or deny?
Let that be a guide for your "period."

Why should you believe one over the other when we know for a fact that there was a decoy plane flown over simultaneously and there were plans to stage
terror with drones painted like commercial airliners way back in 1964?!

One: you do NOT know for a FACT, for guess what mate, since 2001, there has been NO conclusive or empirical evidence presented to make what you are
asserting to be a "fact" a FACT. Hello?!

Google: northwoods document

For?
Why not simply use the ATS search feature and migrate to those topics related to what you want me to check Google for?

Not to mention the fact that neither the video nor the physical evidence corroborates the fact that there was a commercial airliner.

Yes, of course, according to you and others, again.
Try hitting that F-4 video I linked and see how much debris was left, k?

Some witnesses may have lied or been planted, some may have been legitimately fooled by the decoy or drone, and some saw it for what it was......a
smaller craft.

That would include those who lied, were planted, and asserted that there was a drone involved and not an commercial airliner? Let me know.

you know they are getting the end of the arguement when they pull out the "Northwoods Document" reference.

Folks, do a frame by frame and you see the front part of the fuselage, and then the next frame is an explosion. What are we not seeing here ? Planes
are not made of concrete, but the Pentagon was. If you take aluminum and you thrust it into a structure such as the Pentagon, what do you expect to be
left? If everything is moving forward, how is it going to wind op on the lawn 100 yards from the impact hole like some of you claim there should be.

I think you were all looking for a CGI video to debunk and instead you got the truth.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Being I was not addressing you, and since your acting on behalf of the member I did address the question to, ask yourself the same question you are
attempting to ask me, k?

Thanks in advance.

seekerof

Ohhh, you didn't address me, huh? Next time I suggest you post your thoughts privately, perhaps via the u2u function provided by this website to
it's members, instead of posting them on a public forum where any member is entitled to respond. I should ask the same question I asked you to
myself, you say? Why should I? You don't see me going around accusing people of believing false rhetoric because they were not there that day, when I
wasn't either, do you? So don't try and subdue Code_Burger with your hypocritical filth, Seekerof. Thank you Kindly.

I would like for ANY of the members who actually SEE a plane, a 757, to PLEASE show us.This is the glory moment all of you have been waiting for just
like us.To finally shut us up.Show us the 'plane' hitting and we shall be on our way.
I dont want to see a squiggly smoke trail.I dont want to see a small blur that is just entering the video.I want to see the 'PLANE' in full view.

YOU CANT!!!!!!

If they really wanted to prove a 757 hit the Pentagon, they could have and SHOULD have released the better footage coming from the other REAL video
cameras.This junk we are getting is from a crap surveillance cam that is easy to edit in ANY photo imaging software.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.